Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

In late 2009 President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize.

I was finishing up my Peace Corps training, acclimating to a
new country, new culture, new opportunities and was barely aware of what was
happening on the world stage in general, in the US in particular.

So it was old news when I returned in 2011, and I have only
recently given it some thought, as a friend of mine brought it up in a manner
critical of the President. Not an
unusual position for him to be critical of the President, but it did pique my
interest.

As I researched I discovered that there was quite a
controversy stirred by the announcement, in the US in particular. Mr. Obama had been in office a scant
nine months and many thought he did not deserve such a prestigious honor. From his remarks at the time, it seems
Mr. Obama too was surprised by the award, and thought he did not deserve to
stand in the company of those who preceded him. The prize includes more than a million dollars in cash,
which money Mr. Obama donated to various charities.

Regardless of our current personal economic status, most of
us residing here in the vast wealth and security of the US have little idea
what it’s like outside the walls of our country. We understand
that we are the last remaining superpower, we take for granted our roads and
telephones and electricity and supermarkets, Walmarts and coffee houses, gated communities,
hospitals and overwhelming military.

For much of the world, America has been the City on the
Hill, a protector, a place of peace and security, and above all, a force for
good and a mighty one at that.

We in America can discuss and debate the reality of that,
but for most of the rest of the world it is a given that when the US talks,
countries listen. When the US
moved militarily, its cause was just.

Since 9/11 and our invasion of Iraq in 2003, that perception
changed.

Whatever we might think of it here, much of the world was
aghast at our invasion of Iraq, no matter what they might have thought of the
political climate there. We
invaded a sovereign country on scant evidence and strong-armed allies to take
part. And politicians in any
country with some degree of savvy understood the oil connection. You can agree or disagree with the
aforementioned, but the perception from outside the US was that the US, with
nuclear warheads and the mightiest army on earth was acting an enraged bull,
acting on its own narrow interests, the rest of the world be damned.

That is hardly a recipe for peace in the world. Hegemony, perhaps. Dominance. But not peace.

President Obama when first in office had enormous challenges
overfilling his plate, but he took it upon himself to begin the long process of
remounting some moral high ground in the world, asserting common goals with
diverse populations, assuring others that the US would again follow the same
rules it demanded of others.

The Nobel Committee gave the award to President Obama for “"for his
extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation
between peoples." The New
York Times reported that Committee Chair Thorbjorn Jagland shrugged off the question of whether "the committee
feared being labeled naïve for accepting a young politician’s promises at face
value", stating that "no one could deny that 'the international climate'
had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason...'We want to
embrace the message that he stands for.'" (Wikipedia)

It was my assertion then and my assertion now that our invasion of
Iraq was exactly the wrong thing to do, sending exactly the wrong message to
the world, assuring an almost inexhaustible supply of terrorists.

President Obama in reaching out to our allies and in particular in
reaching out to Muslim nations began the long process of rebuilding trust. He took a lot of heat for it here at
home, but it was what needed to be done if ever we are going to build a world
with some security and an eye towards the possibility of peace.

His acceptance speech in Stockholm was brilliant, but probably not
what the Nobel Committee expected or was used to. He asserted a view towards peace tempered with the knowledge
that force can and sometimes must be used.

“I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing
naïve in the creed and lives of Gandhi, and of (Martin Luther) King, but as a
head of state, sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by
their examples alone. I face the
world as it is. I cannot stand
idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake; evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have
halted Hitler’s armies.
Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their
arms. To say that force may
sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history,
the imperfections of man, and the limits of reason.”

He went on to say, “Part
of our Challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths, that
war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human
folly. President Kennedy said,
“let us focus on a more practical more attainable peace, based not on a sudden
revolution in human nature, but in a gradual evolution in human institutions.””

I think he was awarded the prize for working towards the
gradual evolution of our own flawed system, and I think it was well deserved.

Comments

Nobel politics allowed Irena Sendler to lose the Peace Prize to the hypocritical buffoon Al Gore. Ms Sendler smuggled over two thousand Polish children to safety during WWII. Seriously, AlGore and the Climate Panel over this heroine? The Nobel Committee has forever lost all credibility. Therefore, Roger, there is little need to comment further on your nice piece.....

That does depend a little bit on you view of climate change...Ms Sendler is a heroine for sure. What she did was incredible and impacted the lives of the 2 thousand. The Nobel Committee is comprised of human beings with their own biases and flaws. If climate change is a reality as some argue, it will surely impact peace and war issues and will impact millions. After spending a weekend in Santa Barbara at 41 degrees, I'm not convinced however, that global warming can be taken seriously.

In reference to this most polarizing president in modern times even worse than Bush we must remember some basic items. On January 25, 2013 this man was found guilty of violating the constitution of the United States of America. To many of us this does not come as a shock. Violation of the constitution he swore to uphold is an impeachable offense for which he would be bound to stand trial before congress and we the people. He will get away with it just as he has done with Benghazi. It is very sad that our first African-American President will be judged in history as the most inept, wasteful, subversive, destructive and divisive President in history. This man twice elected because of the color of his skin rather than the content of his character. To quote his outgoing secretary, Hillary Clinton, "Shame on on you Barack Obama"

Randy...wasn't sure what you were writing about, so checked it out in an AP release to the Denver Post.."WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a far-reaching decision that could severely limit a chief executive's powers to make recess appointments.
The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit marked a victory for Republicans and business groups critical of the labor board. If it stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions over the past year, including some that make it easier for unions to organize.
When Obama filled the vacancies on Jan. 4, 2012, Congress was on an extended holiday break. But GOP lawmakers gaveled in for a few minutes every three days just to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions—some lasting less than a minute—were a sham.
The court rejected that argument, but went even further, finding that under the Constitution, a recess occurs only during the breaks between formal year-long sessions of Congress, not just any informal break when lawmakers leave town. It also held that presidents can bypass the Senate only when administration vacancies occur during a recess.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said the administration strongly disagrees with the decision and that the labor board would continue to conduct business as usual, despite calls by some Republicans for the board members to resign.
"The decision is novel and unprecedented," Carney said. "It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations."
Under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid."
....so it seems it's politics as usual, with the Republicans playing stupid as the Democrats. Impeaching Mr. Obama for the politics of Washington is wishful thinking.
And I think it's disingenuous for a disciplined logician such as yourself to resurrect a slur from a hard-fought primary campaign and use it as contemporary comment. Hillary Clinton made the remark as acampaign opponent, not as an out-going secretary of state. "In a “60 Minutes” interview raising eyebrows in status-obsessed Washington, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she and President Obama buried the hatchet after their 2008 campaign “because we both love our country.” Obama called Clinton one of the greatest diplomats in U.S. history."
There was obviously rancor during the primary, but they moved on.

And Curt, you have it exactly right in the first part of your response..."what difference does it make?"

"What difference does it make now?" is the quote from outgoing Sec Clinton during the Benghazi hearings. I think it was a disgraceful statement. It make a huge difference to the families of those four fallen heroes and to the citizens of the United States. She was well prepared, and she gave no answers. I agree with Representative Paul when he said "if he were president he would have relieved her of her position". We let four Americans die and no one has been held accountable. It was a clear CYA for her future run in 2016. Where is our investigative journalism now Roger? Sorry, on a rant....

Not using Clinton's comment as though it were spoken yesterday. No one reading this forum would overlook such a usage. The item would be disingenuous were it not yet true. Numerous sources affirm the feud has never stopped. Obama told Bill to take a hike when he offered to coach him for the first debate. Clinton never forgot it. They have only "moved on" superficially.
Sources indicate that it is the peace between these two which is disingenuous. The First family has never invited the Clinton s over for a private dinner. That says something. Jay Carney says the administration profoundly disagrees with the court. No kidding. Ron Ziegler said the same thing about Archibald Cox.

A United States court ruled against Obama, not political foe, or party. The court found that President Obama had violated the constitution. It's a legal rather than political finding.

Randy, where was your outrage when GW Bush did the same thing..."Friday's opinion, by Judge David Sentelle, is directly at odds with a 2004 decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Atlanta, which upheld Mr. Bush's recess appointment of a federal judge against a similar challenge." (Wall St. Journal, 26 Jan, 2013)...It's politics. The Repubs don't like Obama's appointments and are trying to out flank them, like the Dems did to GW. It's politics and a waste of time.
Ref Obama and Clintons, I doubt they are bosom buddies, but they moved on enough to work together for the country. That's the whole idea. To work together for the country.

Curt...have you ever looked at the full quote from which the Clinton remark was cleverly parsed?...""With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans," Clinton responded, raising her voice at Johnson, who continued to interrupt her. "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." As she said, with all due respect, we had 4 dead Americans...she was NOT being disrespectful to the Americans or the families, she was frustrated with Johnson's uniformed line of questioning.
We let 4,486 American servicemen die in Iraq from 2003 to 2012...GW put us at war there and it was a mistake. And no one has been held accountable.

In context her remark was even more disgraceful. It does make a big damn difference right now. She was being a bully. She should have been called on that remark. She should have been relieved.

Your man in office has had more Americans killed on his watch in Afghanistan than GW. Shall we then hold him accountable for those deaths? Have him do what he said he was gonna do. Get us out.

Over 500 Chicagoans were killed last year, by mostly handguns. In our own backyard. More in ten years than all allies in Afghanistan. The new mayor is not being held accountable for those deaths either. His strict gun laws are not working.

Hey Roger, I know you despise Bill O'Reilly, a misguided conviction, but his suggestion for cutting gun violence deserves consideration. Simply create and enforce a ten year federal sentence for any crime committed with a firearm. Any gun offense, including lying on a federal firearm background check. Create this simple law and ENFORCE it. Screw all these proposed stupid gun regulations that have zero hope of improving anything. Thoughts? Simple.